216 H. G. Raverfcy— The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
to Nudhah [Nudiyab. of the Sindian historians], to the boundaries of 
the territory of Multan, all appertain to Sind. Baniyah [ ]146 or- 
Naniyah [ ] or Maniyah or Maniah [ —but all are doubtful, 
because the word is chiefly written without points, and and 
even ], is a small city [or town] which ’Abd-ul-’Aziz-i-Habbari 
the Kureshi, the ancestor of the tribe who hold Mansuriyah in subjec- 
• _ 
tion, 146 built. Mand [ aaxj ] belongs to Hindustan, and there are infidels 
dwelling therein; and all that has been mentioned belongs to Hindu¬ 
stan.” 
Then follows the important statement, that, “ The junction of the 
Mihran with the Sind Rud [the Biah and its tributaries as elsewhere 
explained] is below Multan, but above Basmid. The Jadd [or Chand] 
Rud [the Hakra] unites with the Mihran below the junction of the 
Sind Rud, towards Mansuriyah.” 
Nudiah [ ], or Nudiyali [ ] 14 7 is a flat open tract of Conn¬ 
ie It is, from its situation, the same place as mentioned by the Istakhari, and 
towards the south-east of Mansuriyah, as shown in the map to the Masalik wa 
Mamalik. See page 213. It is written without points in the map to the Bodleian 
MS. See note 163. 
146 That is, the towns dependent on Mansuriyah and its district, and situated 
therein. See page 190. 
147 Elliot sometimes renders this “ Budh,” “Buddha,” and “Budhiya,” but 
says that Idrisi and IJazwmi prefer “ Nadha or Nudha ,” and immediately after 
[p. 388, vol. I] says : “ The old tract of Budh or Budhiya, very closely corresponds 
with Kachh Gandava,” and straightway goes to “ Bori or Bura in the Afghan pro¬ 
vince of Siwistan,” and of course, becomes hopelessly confused. 
The Borah or table land, so called, of the southern part of the Af gh anistan— 
for there is no town called “Bori,” much less “ Bura,” as he imagined—is out of 
Sind altogether, and one hundred and twenty-five miles farther north than Gandabah. 
and more than three hundred and fifty miles north of Bahman-abad. 
In a note at page 389 he says : “ In the passage above quoted from the 
Mujmalu-t-Tawdrikh, Bahman is said to have founded a city called Bahmanabad 
in the country of Budh. There is a place entered as Brahiman in Burnes’ map, 
between Shal and Bori.” This shows the utter confusion into which he has fallen. 
He should have added to the above, that, in the work last quoted, the author says 
that “ this Bahman-abad is said to be Mansuriyah by some,” and he assigns it its 
proper position. See Elliot, Yol. I, page 109 as to “ Mansura” and Bahman-abad, 
and note 105, para. 18. 
I may add, that, Ibn Haukal, and the Masalik wa Mamalik, have Nudhah— 
AAAJ —at all times; and in changing it to, or reading it as, “ Budh,” “ Budha,” 
and “ Budhiya,” Elliot may have been under the impression, that it must be correct 
to do so, if the people were Budhists, or in support of some theory that required 
to be bolstered up. See also pages 206 and 208. 
It so happens that Nudah or Nudiyah lay on the west of the Mihran, while 
Budah the Budiyah of the Namah, lay on the east. See what Wilford, who 
